![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThe long-running controversy, reported by CBC, as to the role of the niqab during court testimony, may be running to an end. Finally; I'd like the court case behind the issue at hand to be resolved, to say nothing of the legal issues surrounding the niqab.
The whole situation strikes me as an example of a conflict very difficult to resolve fairly for both parties, whether we're talking about the woman professing faith or the lawyers claiming a right to properly question a witness.
The whole situation strikes me as an example of a conflict very difficult to resolve fairly for both parties, whether we're talking about the woman professing faith or the lawyers claiming a right to properly question a witness.
A case pitting freedom of religion against the right to a fair trial is back in provincial court Monday for a two-day preliminary hearing in Toronto.
The Muslim woman, known as N.S. in the courts, has accused two family members of sexually assaulting her as a child but refused to remove her face veil, or niqab, during testimony.
After six years of the case making its way through the court system, the Supreme Court of Canada last December crafted new guidelines for when someone may be required to remove a face veil.
The guidelines say a judge should consider a number of factors including a veiled witness's sincerity of belief, and whether there are ways to accommodate them, such as testifying behind a screen.
[. . .]
The 4-2-1 ruling made by Canada's top court largely upheld a decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal that has also heard the case.
The woman has accused her uncle and cousin of sexually assaulting her when she was between six and 10 years old, during the 1980s.
Lawyers for the two men have in the past said a fair and open trial requires the face of a witness be seen because certain facial cues are important to establishing credibility
